tv Washington This Week CSPAN July 5, 2015 1:00am-3:01am EDT
it proven to be the best in the world. i think the good thing here is 3.0 is my understanding, it is going to be a global standard. countries can do whatever they want and they often do for reasons that are not technical and some people like to be different. gordon: but it is so good for telecommunication, i think it will set the standard for the world because it will help us leapfrog the rest of the world and they will be catching up with us. gary: i think there are engineers all around the world working up to that. at least that is what mark has told me and i think that's good. richard: looking at the programming ahead, gary had touted ultra high definition television and everyone wants to see advances. i don't know if it's going to have the same kind of wow factor we all experienced as consumers when hd tv came around.
what do you foresee in that regard? michael: it's very difficult to say because people have different perceptions. it beautiful. i don't find it as radically transformational as i thought analog to hd was, which are member being chairman of the fcc touring and seeing my -- having my socks knocked off. i have 4k set at home, not a lot to watch yet. it doesn't have that dramatic differentiation. other characteristics improve quality quite dramatically, hdr cable with the, the way color is rendered is quite beautiful.
but this is just a cautionary tale. the human ear can only hear so may things in the human eye has so many limitations. you can only make a machine and begins to exceed real life and you have to be careful -- i don't know how to put this but i -- at some point, we are exceeding what is natural and the experience becomes unreal and jarring and almost too sharp that it creates a conflict with the way you see the world. i have no idea if that is 4k or 8k. or some k in the future. if it helps gary sell more tv sets this week. gordon: i want to help gary sell more tv sets. if you put 4k content on a
current hdtv, it is marginally better. if you put it on a 4k tv, i see the difference. gary: the experience and the reality of ultra 4k, the immersive experience you get being surrounded, the fact that you could be there with someone 3000 miles away, the opportunities here are really big and one of the drivers is not necessarily traditional. there are other things out there, there is prerecorded, there is video -- there are all sorts of things happening in other areas that will change the experience we have as consumers
of entertainment and 20 years from now on this stage we will be talking perhaps about the immersive experience and doing it all in different locations. i grew up on a lot of science fiction and that is what excites me about my job. the only things that could go wrong is if government requires permission before innovation. the broadcast is an opportunity for broadcasters. cable is a phenomenally great type line and the cable industry is the most strategic and says we are not going to make all of our money from content. we are going to make it bia -- make it by being a pipeline. a lot of it is coming from the internet and youtube channels and new products are coming up that i would not have considered. snap chat -- it was created and
made by 21 years -- 21-year-olds and was rejected. we still have a long way to go. we still have parts of the body that we have not used. [laughter] richard: what some people find jarring -- gary: i'm grateful for that. [laughter] [laughter] richard: all of a sudden we are talking about 8k. is that likely to be an in-home consumer product in the near term? gary: i don't talk about it because i think when consumers get 4k, they are blown away. we know there will be robotics and drones and personal devices,
driverless cars -- it is a great future ahead of us. yes, there are other generations. this is like the patent guy who said 100 years ago, everything that's going to be invented has been invented. you think our senses are going to limit that? there are algorithms that will advance our senses. gordon: one thing you could plug -- now, i agree, as someone who is a consumer, who has been around tv for a long time, i understand part of the challenge.
but we are being naive if we do not understand the trends that exist on the internet called "good enough." the mobile phone is not near the fidelity of a fixed line phone. you could have fought forever. i am old enough, i can remember -- cell phones were not cheap. we sell fidelity. we sell quality. telephone servers do not go down two minutes a year. there are so many things consumers will accept. the internet can do the same thing around video if we are not careful. there are kids that are happily contented with periscope and nothing about that will match anything on tv today. it does not mean it is not disruptive.
it does not mean you can acclimate a generation around a different kind of value exchange of "good enough." we think we can sit back and it will sell itself. i think we need to be advocates in assigning quality as high as the virtues people are getting from accessibility that supplements. it is just a challenge. i think we have to be committed to make the case for quality and not assume -- just put it in front of need or it will sell it self. richard: as far as ultra high definition developments -- isn't even greater the possibility
the standard for mobile devices? >> exactly. richard: how will that impact -- gordon: this is one of the greatest virtues of 4.0. broadcast mobility will be part of the future. targeted advertising. political advertising is important to broadcasters. it is broadcasting still, but it is going to shrink unless you can be more targeted in micro-targeting in elections. 3.0 allows you to do that. so, there is endless potential opportunities and my challenge is to get all of my members to
understand if they want to play in the telecommunications world of tomorrow as an equal partner with cable, satellite, and the phone companies, you need to be on this new standard. it will open up new opportunities to customers, as opposed to being subordinated to in a position that leaves us really just over the top in the mobile world. and this just not enough spectrum to do all video in over the top. there's not going to be. so, we need to do this. richard: gary, on the current standard, the government spent a couple million dollars equipping the consumers with set-top boxes. are we going to go through a market driven program this time? gary: i think it depends whether broadcasters get behind it or not, frankly. that is the challenge. broadcasters were there in the beginning for hdtv. they lost an opportunity.
even though the market projections ended up being perfect to sell hdtv, we did not have the broadcasters drive the transition. it turned out it was sports, movies, and believe it or not -- dvd. broadcasters had an opportunity. they say over the air is important. the individual broadcasters did not promote the use of antennas. they just don't. i think that increasingly will be to their detriment. the same thing you mentioned with phones -- >> by the way, the reason for that is of got my share of members in common. gary: the biggest surprise for our industry the deterioration of quality with mp3 and people accepted lower quality.
it was the trade-off you are talking about. with smart phones, they do not have fm capability, but there is no market at this point. radio broadcasters have not created that demand. so broadcasters have this phenomenal marketing to do. maybe if the individual broadcasters do not see the return to themselves, for the industry -- there is no question. sometimes you are creating a need that may not otherwise exist. gordon: gary will appreciate this and i think michael will as well. they all understand on a balance sheet. we are tried to keep all of the
frogs in the wheelbarrow. part of the job our association has is to look beyond the quarterly report and say look to the future. and it does require as the digital age did, as it will again with 3.0 -- >> also i have an easier job. that is what our companies are doing. they are always looking down looking for a field. it is a question of aiming for the future. in our industry, i do not think that there is an industry who thinks they can build on the fast. if there was, maybe it was called circuit city or radioshack. --who think they can build on the past. richard: just talking about the key issues in the future television world -- michael, it it seems every day there is a new streaming service. how will that impact the cable
industry as you see it? michael: i think it will affect it profoundly. it is a risk and a challenge and an opportunity. look, internet protocol allows the right kind of flexible and strategic use of content. ip technology, or some form of it, is what allows a recommendation engine. it is what allows integration with commonly-shared platforms. it is what allows the customer specific data it advertisers increasingly demand to be provided and paid for. if those all go well, i think they will do really well. if anyone says we should run away, i think we will get run over by it. i think we do get a little techno-ecstatic about some of this stuff. television is still launching a great story.
i think as spurs this distribution platform or that, i i am still at home watching - i think as far as this distribution platform are that i am still at home watching "madmen." we can get a little bit hyperbolic about how transformational or revolutionary it is. the human beings still craves story and the human being still craves being entertained. that is not going anywhere. any time in history. whether it is that thing or this wire or that or through spectrum or through the ground, they well watch it three and 10 hours a month -- they will watch it 310 hours a month.
gary: all these new technologies -- all new content will evaporate. and the millennium, this was just the worst thing since jack the ripper and the opposite has happened. there is more creativity and content then ever because more technology has enabled to do it cheaper. big record labels have suffered, but content in music is incredible now. you do not need a big distribution company. michael: i think the challenge that is hard to square is the consumer is increasingly, daily acclimated to wanting the finest and best television can produce and increasingly unwilling to pay or not desiring to pay what it costs to produce. the average major television longform drama costs $4 million an episode to make. my kids, i want to watch "game
of thrones," which has a budget that would blow your hair off. i want to watch "breaking bad." where is that going to be funded? when you jump into original content -- what was it, a $300 million annual expense? richard: isn't it true that a la cart pricing or packages of programs are something that consumers are going to want? michael: they are not going to want. they want it now. richard: and impact of the future of cable and other industries? michael: i do not treat it as a disruption. i treated as a different market. the want to consume in a different manner. they have the same passion. they have different expectations
of when and how. they have different expert patients of what they see -- different expectations of what they see as the value trade-off. we had a wonderful time when we all celebrated the 500 channel universe. i remember this quest commercial. this guy walks into the hotel. every movie ever made. duration is still valuable. consumers still craves the ability to have something that is simple, less is more, well priced, well valued. that means you've got to create flexibility around packages. whether that is working with your programming partners or them experimenting or telling the government not to mandate bundles, or anything, but you've got to create the flexibility to give them what they are asking for anything you should he
warned up -- this generation does not have to just take it. they have the tools, ability and the inventiveness to entertain themselves. if you do not give it to them, they will watch youtube for the rest of your life. >> is probably difficult to say in your position, but harking back, talking about the consumers and giving them what they want, i interviewed you when your chairman, and i ask you about tivo and you said "this is god's machine." that was my view of you as chairman. that was my favorite quote that you had. now there are lawsuits against tivo and we expect the personal video recorder to be a usable products. but that's the law. you have to give consumers what they want. richard: what about retransmission consent in that regard? people paying for broadcast signals?
what do you think about that? gordon: i'm all for it. [laughter] gordon: as long as broadcasting continues to reduce the most-watched content, as long as local as valued, as long as we are free people in america, we simply ask for the right to bargain for the power of our content without the government dictating. richard: what is wrong with that? michael: if it is valuable and they do not want the government to dictate it, sell it in the free market. why do you need a government sanctioning? richard: what the marketplace -- what they have in mind is marketplace negotiations? michael: transmission are not -- lines of transmission are not marketplace -- what is increasingly happening is consumers are looking for the
content they want in different forms and the role where the content owner or the ip broadcaster has more control about where and how that goes and the consumer has much work flexibility about how the system works. that to me is just the reality of what the market pressures will produce. look. back to my original question -- the only thing i ask is if the government wants to reevaluate the market as it exists today and reevaluate the market conditions that led you to those choices, you know, 20-something, 30 years ago, then revalidate that. i do think there are strains. it's not just retransmission. i do not want to get caught in that. but i think there is an important need to reevaluate what our public policy judgments -- wouldn't you love for the
country do have a modern reevaluation of the sensible of localism? the reality is, i think that is a fair question to ask. someone should ask that and decide whether the country cares anymore. and if we do care, that i think he has got a point. but if we don't care -- [laughter] michael: none of us are entitled to permanents. we have to be relevant in the modern age. gordon: i think localism means less in new york and washington, big metropolitan areas. i will tell you, being for morgan, -- being from oregon, it is absolutely vital. for all of flyover america it's an important value and if it went away -- well, it's not going to go away, because every member of congress is for it.
gary: so, is it like the second amendment? gordon: when is the tornado coming? what is the weather? these are things that people count on. you may not think about it in washington. but the one thing that everyone counted on -- it was not broadband. it was broadcasting. michael: i would agree with everything gordon just said. localism has a value. that's not the question. the question is, does it rise to the level where the government should allow other entities to subsidize that model and should the government create legally enforceable preferences for that value as protected by law?
"mad men" is super, super value will. i do not want to miss it on sunday night. gordon: if the government was to get rid of all of the regulations related to broadcasting, most of them are harmful to our costs. a few of them, a few of them like must carry our beneficial to small stations. there is a trade-off, but if the effort is to get rid of the few things that benefit broadcasters and leave us with all of the other costing positions, then i would join you in that. i would take them all away. michael: i tried to. [laughter] richard: michael -- michael, your industry is engaged, just getting started in a rather -- because you are concerned about the fcc's open internet board and the possibility of title ii regulation. do you want to speak to that?
gordon: can i say something about that? as a member of congress, i did not vote for net neutrality. the best thing about net neutrality is it but michael in the bull's-eye in this congress and not me. [laughter] richard: don't worry. you will be back there soon enough. [laughter] michael: i want to go back and commend gary, the first one to address this. he's totally right. i could get in the weeds on this issue, but let me start from a high level point that is really important. since the internet was invented in this country, the administration of the time, vice president gore, i could name many people i thought were instrumental in creating the original foundation of the way
public policy would look at this new thing called the internet. richard: including michael powell. michael: including me. the national ethos was let entrepreneurs, innovators, and engineers and every day people determine the growth path and evolution of this phenomenal infrastructure, and not adopt the model of a central regulator with attorneys and bureaucrats not working from the bottom up but from the top down as we tried to do with the phone model. that was a major national commitment. that was the ethos for the last 20 years. for the internet to grow unfettered by state and national
regulations. for 20 years we watch to be country produce some of the greatest wealth generating innovating companies in the history of the world. there would be no google, no facebook, no amazon, no ebay, no snap chat, no whatsapp without this policy. the technology was deployed faster than any technology in the history of the world under that commitment. secondly, we as leaders wandered around the world and demanded other governments do the same. we demanded governments with much more evil intentions over the internet -- russia, china, the arabian peninsula -- no, we will not stand for regulating the internet like the telephone system so you can censor, so you can extract a necessary value. and on the decision on net
neutrality, the government switched that long-standing policy presumption. we have gone from a structure that is principally directed by markets and innovators and people to one that has lawyers and bureaucrats with an adversarial process and i do not know why anybody believes that that is a virtuous moment in time, and i do not know how we will have the moral authority to sit at the international telecommunications union a year from now and tell the russians you should not regulate the internet like a telephone infrastructure. that is a switch. that is the most powerful source of authority the fcc has available to it bar none. it is now a central and powerfully armed regulator and it has created a process of complaints that allows any company to collaterally attack a business decision, to allow anybody who is unhappy with any
aspect of the market to run with the commission, and we will also there for the year or year and a half on average it takes for them to make a decision about anything, waiting or this process of coordination before we can even deployed. then i go back to what gary said. the genius was the innovation of without permission. i think this is a tragic mistake the country will deeply regret. [applause] richard: why don't you tell us how you really feel? [laughter] richard: this is like the john oliver clip got. 2015. pretend it's 2020. five years from now. we are talking about the future of television. what is the headline? gary: the headline is lots of
great things, but i think the wise man has to be tricked by the kid. the bird is in the kid's and hands. if he says it is alive, he will let it go. if he says it is dead, the wise men will be wrong. broadcasting is off the table now. that's broadcasting. for cable, i think they have more options. they have been very well situated. upper services have come along with wi-fi or power lines, talking about dividing broadband from satellite, which is a nice thing. there are a lot of choices that are very healthy. there is a natural progression path, but there will be surprises as really clever companies do amazing things. richard: senator, maybe the answer for you would be a small,
more compacted broadcast industry? gordon: i think the headline is gary's book will be in its 10th printing, the chief will have resigned or retired. i think the future broadcast will be very bright. atc 3.0, you you will all have gotten your work done. we will have.net implement it. localism, free, live, large, will be available for all americans. richard: michael? michael: these are long headlines. television goes platinum. i think we live in the golden age of television. how much more can it be? i think media will be so omnipresent, it will come out of your pores.
it's going to be a stunning period for consumption. cable trials -- television. richard: that's great. [indiscernible] [laughter] richard: follow-up question. just in a few words, michael what you think about the future of television? michael: it's frayed. the first thing we can do is think beyond television. i think another headline will be we could increasingly begin to understand it is a form of human content and entertainment and that it is not fixated around one central device or room or experience, and that, which we will have transformed to a much broader, richer kind of experience with many more
opportunities and companies and players and the ecosystem. i think that super exciting. challenge is challenge, but it's also opportunity, and who would not want to be in this is nuts? richard: senator? gordon: live, local, available on all platforms at all times. gary: sometimes you say television displays, and sometimes i think you mean television content? or do you mean the ecosystem? television is still one of the great technologies. the problems today with society whether it is health care or agriculture or food be resolved by technology, the internet of things.
and part of that is the effective display you have and the content you get. it will raise all of us up. richard: i will just add my own words for everyone in this audience to what you have contributed to the current standard and what you will contribute to the future of television. thank you, and thank you to this wonderful panel. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> we visited a tech fair to hear what technology innovators want to expect -- discuss with members of congress. we spoke with oneweb and qualcomm and others.
>> if a business owner doesn't like a review of the business and says i'm going to sue you they may ask you go forward with it that the user who wrote that review and shared that experience knows it is factual and true. you're the little guy. you may not have the money to go to court over what you wrote about a free restaurant or bad car mechanic. you just take off your review. yelp have the decency act, what we are really worried about is the chilling effect that those types of lawsuits will have of people that would other why share the first and experience. >> there are 600 satellites. there are letter regulatory items we have to address. that is part of the reason we
want to be here on the hill. we want to bring access to the public and provide services for public safety. it will benefit the population in general. >> wireless is different from wire alliance. they could be treated differently. it is a scarce resource. is not exactly the same. we think the wireless business to be given careful consideration. monday night on "communicators" on c-span or multiple. -- c-span 2. >> first families take vacation time. a good read could be the perfect companion for your summer journey.
what better book than one that appears inside the personal life of every first lady in american history? first ladies, the lives of 45 iconic women. fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. a great summertime read. available from public affairs as a hardcover or an e-book or your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> first lady michelle obama talked about technical education. it is part of her reach higher initiative that encourages students to further their education beyond high school. issues introduced by jake smith who is vice president of finance for family, career, and community leaders in america. this is about 15 minutes.
>> ladies and gentlemen, mr. jacob smith. [applause] >> hello. my name is jacob smith. on the national vice president for family, career, and community leaders of america. it is an honor for me and the rest of the organization to be here to celebrate the innovation and career education. it has influenced my life and my high school career. arts and business management -- these courses went beyond teaching me the technical skills needed for my career preparation and indeed learned life skills. i learned how make holiday size and computer programming -- holiday sauce and computer
programming. i was given the foundation to prepare me for managing and meeting -- and assessing life's challenges. this is a huge honor and a great achievement. i was involved in a major traffic crash when a distracted driver hit our school vehicle head on. i suffered critical injuries come including a brain injury, persevered. i was able to never give up and strive for success. after therapy, i persevered for what some thought would be a major setback. the aunt all of the odds of people thinking i wouldn't be able to walk again, i was elect did to serve as a national officer.
as our first lady has shown as, those circumstances do not determine our future, but rather our attitudes. inspire, inform, prepare all students to reach their higher education. i could've graduated later or even dropped out of school, but i wanted more and i did what it was necessary to recover and get back to school and graduate. i will be attending a university with a full tuition scholarship. [cheers and applause] one individual who has inspired youth like me to reach higher -- she is a lawyer, writer, and wife of president barack obama and a strong advocate for her education and healthy living. please join in welcoming first lady michelle obama. [applause]
michelle obama: hello, everyone. please, rest yourselves. [laughter] let me thank jacob for that wonderful introduction and for sharing your story. it is amazing. inspiring. it is a reason why we do what we do. just hearing her you persevered. now you have gone on to great life lessons like holiday sauce. [laughter] i was happy to have malia make some scrambled eggs. [laughter] but we are proud of you. let's give jacob another hand. [applause] i also want to thank the educators and the philanthropists and the public and private sector leaders that are here today.
hello to all of you. most of all, thank you to the students who are here. [applause] and the young man who stood up. i like that. [laughter] like, here i am. a picture later. now that is leadership. [laughter] but not just the students in this room. there are thousands of young people who are joining us from national conferences for the technology students association, as well as the future business leaders of america. how i to all of your -- hi to all of you out there as well. [applause] really it is the students across the country who are studying and learning and dreaming big. you are the reason why we are here today. we are here because we believe in you. we do.
absolutely. we are here because we want to make sure that you get all the tools that you need to to reach your dreams. those dreams are amazing and big and huge. you need all the support you can get. we know one of the best ways to do that is through career and technical education. cte. more people should. the high school diploma isn't enough. i cannot say that enough. a high school diploma is not enough to be able to compete in today's globalizing economy. if you want to learn cutting edge skills, if you want to prepare yourself for college and a good career, if you want to go into the culinary arts or start your own is this or work in a hospital are going to 3-d printing, whatever it is, it is important for students to
realize that a four-year university is not your only option. it is not your only option. we talk about four-year universities all the time. it is not a ways a four-year university. cte can be the best option because you can get all of the professional skills you need for a good job and you could do it at a fraction of that time and a fraction of the cost compared to a four-year university. more importantly, these are high quality programs that push students academically and challenge students to sharpen their critical thinking and problem solving and medication skills. jacob has all of that going on all at once. this is important.
it is often -- there is often a job at the end of it. a paycheck waiting for you when you graduate. not a lot of graduates can often say that. career and tech programs make a lot of sense. that is why across the country schools and businesses are working together to develop a curriculum which is exciting, so students could get tailor-made courses for positions that companies actually need to fulfill. this is what high schools are partnering up with community colleges so that young people can earn college credit and sometimes even leave high school with professional credentials in hand. i speak at high school graduations all around the country. on those impressed when students stand up and say they are ready to launch into their field. it is quite impressive. everyday students are getting hands on experience through these opportunities at hospitals and businesses, schools, just
about everywhere else. my staff told me that somebody is getting experience on a 65 research vessel in the ocean. that is happening somewhere. pretty cool. these kinds of opportunities are leading to a wave of innovation from our young people. i understand that we are going to see a four inch satellite that will be launched into orbit to help us study and analyze our atmosphere in soil. critical. wow. that's pretty cool. wow. i agree. [laughter] and baseball fans, i'm sure that's exciting. and 3-d printers that create chocolate sculptures. everyone likes that one. everyone can connect with that. [laughter] cte programs are good for student.
they can learn new skills and find their passion. it is good for businesses. they could cap into a pipeline of skills and talents. it is good for our country. these programs will grow our economy and unleashed the nests -- next generation of launch printers and innovators. at the site earlier this year my has been expanded the u.s. presidential scholars program to honor some of our best and brightest students in career and technical education. later this summer, we will be launching the reach higher career app challenge. we want to make it easier for students across the country to find a cd program that fits with their passion and with their goals. i know we have got some folks are today from our biggest tech companies that want -- companies. career counselors, business
leaders, everyone out there which are heads together and think about ways to design a new act bill helps students connect with the programs and jobs they need to realize their dreams. i want you to help students see which jobs are in high demand in their communities. help them see which programs given the skills that they need. i also want you to help them figure out how much all of this costs and what their future earning power might be in that given field viewed can you imagine for kid to me not be motivated if they see a job title and a salary, they could understand purpose of that. we always try to do that with young people. imagine that to happen through an act. there are so many things. we want to see what all of you will come up with. this challenge officially launches in a couple of weeks. sign up or updates.
get more information. i hope you all take up the challenge and see what we can come up with. to all the young people here and what you want to know that we are doing everything we can help you fulfill your potential. whether that is making it easier for you to find career pathways by using your smartphone whether it is something i has been is doing to bring down the cost of higher education -- my husband is doing to bring down the cost of higher education -- [applause] back could help. -- that could help. we are depending on u.s. is students to do your part -- you as students to do your part as well.
i cannot say it enough. we need you to get it together. study as hard as you can. put everything into your study that you can do. reach higher for yourselves every single day. there has to be a hunger that you all have. there could be no policy written. prioritize your education. every day yet to come in with that hunger. you have got to be there. you have got to finish the job. if you have the money here and here, it is not going to happen. there is no alternative.
finish her education. you have got to finish her education. -- finish your education. you have got to finish your education. get a degree. certificate. something. if you do that, you have the tools you will need to fulfill your dreams. as you work to get your education, i want to close with what i had at the outset. we believe in you. we know that you have the raw material that it takes to do whatever is in your heart to do. barack and i know this because we stand where we are today because we had a lot of support and something in our hearts and minds that told us we could do it. we believe in you, all right?
if you don't walk away from this with any of the message, you have got a country that need you to be great. we're counting on you to be that next generation to take over all that we are doing. you're got to be trained. ready. hungry. take advantage of every opportunity that comes your way. keep up the great work. i hope you have a phenomenal time here at the white house. ask a lot of questions. be impressive. don't be shy. [laughter] i don't have to tell that to you. [laughter] just know that we are going to work as hard as we can and not just in the white house, but beyond. mentoring you and raising the next generation to be great at something is a personal goal for me and my husband. we are only getting started.
we're hoping that you will be ready to partner with us when we get out of here. ok? all right? i look forward to everything you all do in the years ahead. enjoy the conference. thank you so much for being here. put your heads together and let's figure out what more we can do to keep these kids moving in the right direction. thank you all. [applause] >> c-span gives you the best access of congress, coverage of the u.s. house, congressional hearings, bringing you events that shape public policy. every morning, "washington journal" is live with your
comment by phone, they spoke on and twitter. c-span created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> on this independence day president and texas republican representative took the opportunity to wish you a happy fourth of july in their weekly addresses. president obama: happy fourth of july, everybody. like many of you, michelle sasha, malia, and i are going to spend the day outdoors, grilling burgers and hot dogs, and watching the fireworks with our family and friends. it's also malia's birthday which always makes the fourth extra fun for us. as always, we've invited some very special guests to our backyard barbecue -- several hundred members of our military and their families. on this most american of holidays, we remember that all who serve here at home and
overseas, represent what today is all about. and we remember that their families serve, too. we are so grateful for their service and for their sacrifice. we remember as well that this is the day when, 239 years ago, our founding patriots declared our independence, proclaiming that all of us are created equal, endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights including the rights to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. a couple of centuries later, we have made ourselves into a big bold, dynamic, and diverse country. we are of all races, we come from all places, we practice all faiths, and believe in all sorts of different ideas. but our allegiance to this declaration -- this idea -- is the creed that binds us together. it's what, out of many, makes us one. and it's been the work of each successive generation to keep this founding creed safe by making sure its words apply to every single american. folks have fought, marched protested, even died for that endeavor, proving that as
americans, our destiny is not written for us, but by us. we honor those heroes today. we honor everyone who continually strives to make this country a better, stronger, more inclusive, and more hopeful place. and we, the people, pledge to make their task our own -- to secure the promise of our founding words for our own children, and our children's children. and finally, what better weekend than this to cheer on team usa -- good luck to the u.s. women's national team in the world cup final! thanks, everybody. from my family to yours, have a safe and happy fourth of july. >> hello. i'm proud to represent a congressional district of texas. i hope you and your family are having a great independence day
weekend. and i want to wish the usa women's soccer team the best of luck in the world cup finals. we are so proud of you pick your grit and determination is inspiring a new group of athletes to dream big. we are fortunate to live here in the u.s. a country where you can work hard and be anything you want to be growing up in san antonio, my parents instilled that lesson in me and early age along with the bounds of honesty and service. before the people texas sent me to congress -- i saw firsthand why we could never take liberty for granted. we face enemies around the world that are more determined than ever that have no intention of giving up the violence and hate they used to cling to power. our principles of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
represent everything our enemies want to destroy. let's recommit ourselves to this truth and winning this fight. this year in the u.s., the house of representatives have passed measures from our veterans and establishing security and protecting privacy. we passed a strong national defense bill that meets the president spending request that has a pay rise for our troops. some are trying to block this critical measure. i hope they will reconsider and to much is at stake right now to let our differences get in the wake of our work that protects freedom. america's men and women make up the greatest wars for good this world has ever known -- warriors
for good this world has ever known. god bless america. >> on the next "washington journal" noam scheiber talks about overtime benefits for american workers. more on the 2016 presidential race with the american prospect and the washington examiner. we also take a look at the greek and puerto rican debt crises and the potential impact on the global economy. we have a former senior writer for bloomberg this this week and current host of the radio show full disclosure. we'll take your calls, answer facebook comments, and twitter. "washington journal" liv >> we're partnering with our cable affiliates as we traveled across the united states.
trouble with us as we learn about the literal and literary history of omaha. >> omagh had her patient in the african-american -- omaha had a reputation in the african-american community. you would not be able to stay in hotels. when did a forest club begin operation the term civil rights, they use the term social justice. the idea of civil rights was so far removed from the idea of the greater community of omaha or the united states that they were operating in a vacuum. they were operating without a net. there were not support groups. there were not prior experiences
to challenge racial discrimination. >> with the back of the union pacific, and how that helped omaha's economy. >> it was founded in 1862. it was signed into law by abraham lincoln. the combined several railroad companies than they were charged with building the transcontinental railroad. they started here and removing west central pacific started in the west coast and was moving east. they met up and omaha. we become that point of moving west. one of the gateways to the west. >> see all of our programs throughout the nancy's bantus book tv. -- c-span2's book tv.
>> three men and a woman believed to be part of the puerto rican nationalist gang in 1950 attempted the assassination of president truman opened fire from the visitors gallery of the u.s. house of representatives. five congressmen were hit. the gun wheelers goes the evil distinction of having perpetrated the criminal outrage almost unique in america's history. >> it was the most violent act ever occurred in the chamber. there were debates right after that say we cannot let this happen again. we need to wall off the visitors gallery with bulletproof glass so this could never happen again.
the more the numbers talked about that, and thought about it, they said that is a bad idea. this is the people's house, and the people cannot be walled off from the floor. the capital building is a symbol, that makes it a target. they finished the building in 1814 there was bombing during world war i. that was the shooting in 1954, what happened in 1971 was a bomb set up. in 1983 there was another bombing by a group opposed to president reagan's foreign policy. in 1998 there were two bank policeman shot. there been those instances over time. yet, the capital has remained a remarkably open building. >> don ritchie and former house
historian race more on history of the house of senate. sunday night. >> they released their schooling in america survey. >> good afternoon, everybody. great to have you here at the american enterprise institute. for the release of the 2015 schooling in america survey, and this is becoming a little bit of
a tradition, i think, between us and the friedman foundation which is headquartered in indianapolis and they released the same poll here last year and we are excited to hear what 2015 has in store. for those of you who are following along at home, watching us on the live stream here, the hash tag for those of you that would like to participate for today's event following along on twitter #schoolinginamerica. how it's going to work, they will present the initial findings, our distinguished panel of respondents it up to the crowd so these here in physical attendance and those following along at home. feel free when that happens, raise raise your hand, we'll talk about that. without further ado, paul diperna with the survey's findings. >> good afternoon. my name is paul diperna. i'm the research director at the friedman foundation for education choice.
we're a nonpartisan group that conducts issues. we use our research base to inform and educate legislators policymakers, advocates, particularly at the state levels around the country. so before we get too far, i just want to give a special thanks to rick hess, mike, the whole aei education policy studies team for hosting today's event. it's a great opportunity to share some of these results and findings and what we've been learning. today we're releasing the latest installment of the schooling in america survey. we've been doing this for a few years now, reporting on various topics in k-12. before we get into the slideses because polls and surveys can just throw at you a sea of data, lots of charts and it can be overwhelming.
i thought we should step back and try to get a better understanding of what some of the social, maybe political developments have been around the country over the past school year and that could possibly signal some of the underlying context for the survey results and some of the findings we have. i don't know if any of you are fans or watch cbs this morning with charlie rose or gayle king. a big fan. they have this really great segment called "your world in 90 seconds." so i think in that spirit, let's call k-12 america in about 90 seconds. why don't we get going. we all know common core is a hot-button issue. it has been for a long time at the state and local levels. and increasingly it's becoming a nationalized political issue. i think we'll see this as we get into 2016, the primaries and
moving into the general election. just yesterday we've seen a couple of states -- ohio louisiana, they are taking steps to further distance themselves from the common core state standards initiative. here's a picture of some protesters, i believe this is somewhere in the northeast. this is an opt-out protest against standardized testing. we've seen over the past year and the seeds were planted back when no child left behind was being first implemented. then it really started to accelerate the past couple years with common core getting more attention that we have these pockets of resistance and protest across the country against standardized testing. we'll see if that becomes a broader, wider social movement or if we'll see these isolated flare-ups around the country.
here back in my home state of indiana, on our state board of education is governor mike pence and superintendent of instruction, glenda ritz sitting side by side. and this picture really encapsulates in some ways that to the tension at the highest level of state politics and state office between education reform and the education establishment. this has been getting a lot of attention. the confrontations in the state board and between the governor and superintendent over the last couple of years. we'll see it's likely the two of them will face off in the gubernatorial election in 2016. state education is a high-profile issue, particularly at the state level and will continue to be not just in indiana but in many other states around the country. here's a picture of nevada governor brian sandoval.
he just signed into legislation probably the most ambitious school choice program in the country where more than noont% -- 90% of the state's k-12 students are now eligible to receive a state-funded multiuse education savings account. this is a new type of program first enacted in arizona about five years ago and now has been enacted in florida last year and then nevada and a couple other states this year. this will be interesting to see in implementation and how things develop in nevada there. and that was a positive development for those of us who are school choice proponents. yesterday there was a very negative development for school choice advocates. that was the colorado state supreme court that ruled on the douglass county state voucher program. they said it violated the state's constitution
particularly the blaine amendment that's in the state constitution. so we'll see in the coming days and weeks if this case actually gets appealed all the way up to the u.s. supreme court. what's happening here in d.c.? it's kind of, you know, when it comes to no child left behind and reauthorization. we have a picture of secretary arne duncan testifying in front of centers lamar alexander, tom harkin and several others. there's been a lot of bills being introduced around no child left behind reauthorization but it's unlikely, in my views, it's probably unlikely to be reauthorized in the coming year or so. so we'll see how things progress here in washington. so that's in context around the country. some of the social and political
developments that have been happening. here's some background for our survey that we'll talk about. this is a survey profile. basically some of the particular specifications of the survey and how it was conducted and administered. i'd like to give a special shoutout to braun research who has been our data collection partners. for almost seven years. they do a great job with conducting these live telephone interviews, providing the data quality control and the data. the interviews that took place for this national survey occurred the end of april and beginning of may. but -- more than all these specks, i think key ones to look at, and it's a little misaligned there, but let's consider the population sample of the survey. it's a national population of adult americans age 18 and older that took the survey in the 50
states and the district of columbia. more than 1,000 interviews were conducted. and the margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. when i talk about and we discuss subgroups like republicans democrats, high income, low income, middle income, each of those groups has their own sample size and it's much smaller than the 1,000 for the total. that smaller sample size raises the margin of error. that makes those numbers a little less reliable than the numbers reporting for the total national sample. second quick note is we are not reporting today and releasing the results for african-americans, latinos and other subgroups based on race and ethnicity. we'll be releasing those results later on this summer toward the end of august. so thinking about our survey and
the types of measures that we're looking at and considering, so there's levels. there are levels of responses. positive/negatives to whatever survey question or item we have. that's pretty basic and what we see most often reported in the news media. we also have and can be more informative in some ways. we look at the margins as well. those are the differences between the aggregate positive responses and aggregate negative. some of them call them gaps, the spread. that can signal the likelihood of that group to go toward -- go lean in towards the positive direction on a question or negative direction. and then there are net intensities and this met rick simply takes the difference but of those strongest held views on both ends.
so the strong positive and strong negative. what's the difference between the two? it gives us a sense of the net intensity around a particular item, when talking about some of these school choice questions, common core, et cetera. with any type of research it's always good to get out there to talk about some of the limitations that come with the research and caveats. first and foremost, this is exploratory, descriptive type of reporting. not meaning to imply any causation or suggest any causal connections, but what we're doing is reporting on the total sample and subgroups, the differences and so forth. there are relatively few data points to establish long trend lines. two, three, four years in some cases worth of data on our items. these are still relatively few for trend lines. as i mentioned before, the subgroups have a smaller sample size in our survey. those numbers will show more
volatileity year to year. as with any type of research design, research program particularly when it comes to surveys and polling, there are challenges of potential for confirmation bias. what we try to do, we work with braun research to build in as many checks and safeguards to guard against that potential confirmation bias. when we think about wording of questions, ordering of questions on the questionnaire, the randomization or rotation of scales or response scales within the questionnaire. so there are things that can be done to be built into the questionnaire to try to safeguard against confirmation bias. some of the general findings i'd like to go over he's for a couple of minutes. americans continue to be negative about the direction of
k-12 education in the country. we've seen this the last couple of years. they are even more negative about the federal government's performance when it comes to handling matterses in k-12. wide gaps between the expressed schooling preferences and phone interviews exist when you compare them to school enrollments out there in the real world. there's a big disconnect. on the questions surrounding school choice reforms, we see large margins of support across though board for vouchers, esas, tax credit scholarships. there's been some change where we've seen a dip for charter schools. 64% to 60%. vouchers remain relatively unchanged. we saw an increase in support of esa from 62% to 64%.
and -- it's important to remember, even though there have been some of these changes generally speaking, american support any of these school choice reforms, 2 to 1, positive to negative. that's an important thing to remember. there are mixed messages that continue to persist around common core. so we do see a positive margin of support for common core. however, the intensity is negative. and that stands in contrast to some of the school choice items we ask about where we see the positive margins as well as the positive intensities. and so then we asked about testing. pluralities, subgroups of school parents say too much time spent on standardized testing. and that is up significantly since last year. here's the outline of the topics we'll cover for the rest of the presentation today.
from the more general to the more specific. we'll talk about the direction of k-12, rating the federal government's performance on k-12 education and schooling issues. school type preferences for the total sample for school parents. why would they choose one particular school type versus another. and then we'll go through some charts about this school choice reforms and then wrap up talking about common core, standardized testing, as well as the state intervention in low-performing schools. here we see some of the trend lines for the general public's views on k-12 education. the red line has been stable. this year 60% of the general public said k-12 is heading off on the right track. 32% said the right direction and we've seen an up tick on the positive response from 26% to 32% over the last three years. it's still 2-1 a negative view of k-12 in the country. when you look at the public's
rating of the federal government, 8 out of 10 americansamerican s give the federal government a fair or poor rating when it comes to handling matters in k-12 education. it's interesting to note the strongly held negative view, the poor rating is almost twice as large as the combined aggregate. 20% gave a rating of good or excellent. you see the line at the bottom 2% said that the federal government was doing an excellent job. now we'll mover on to questions about school type preference expressed by those who took our survey. if it were your decision and you could select any type of school,
what type of school would you select in order to attain the best education for your child? so all things being equal, what's your type? 41% chose a private school. 36 said regular public school. 12% said charter school and 9% said home school. you compare that to the one on the bottom. those reflect actual enrollments of students in these school types. 84% of students in the country are going to a regular public school or traditional public school. 4% are going to public charter schools. 9% to private school and 3% it's estimated that are being home schooled. there's just a huge difference between these privately -- personally expressed references in our phone interviews and these actual enrollment patterns. and here's the trends we see on
this question over the last four years. you can see that private school preferences have been the plurality for the last three years, hovering low 40s to mid-40s. and about more than one-third in the mid to high 30s has been the public school preference. roughly the last few years roughly 1 out of 10 preferring public charter schools and 1 out of 10 preferring home schooling. so just thinking about the subgroup of school parents in our sample. this represents roughly a quarter of the respondents who took our survey this year. we asked a question, why would you choose that particular school in the previous question. what's the reason? this is an open end question. so our friends at braun will record these verbatim responses. usually it's a single word or phrase or sentence, and then we have categories that we code these responses into.
and this is what we come up with. so you can see the largest proportion said better education or quality, which is kind of -- it's not too surprising. then we also see 14% saying they would choose a school because of -- they want their child to get individual attention, one on one attention. 12% say better teachers. 10% said academics and curriculum and another 10% said class size or student-teacher ratio ratio. if you took the first, third and fourth categories, about 39% are saying something that -- about school quality, student learning, teaching, academics is a reason why they'd choose the school and combine the second and fifth categories that reflects something larger about where 24% are saying they would choose a school for some measure of like personalized learning,
customized learning, individualized learning. now we'll move on to the questions about school choice. and so we asked questions about charters, esas, vouchers and tax credit scholarships. so we'll continue the levels of support and opposition. we see that the support is a majority across the board. and 62% are supporting esas. 61% of the total sample supports vouchers. 60% support tax credit scholarships and 53% are still supporting charter schools. the levels of opposition. about one-third opposed to vouchers, 29% opposed to tax-credit scholarships. 28% esas, 27% opposed to charter schools. >> in the survey because there may be some folks that aren't familiar with some of the terms like esa, tax-credit vouchers, et cetera. for the survey respondents, you would explain what it was?
>> that's right. >> those who didn't know. >> right. we do define and give context for each of these school choice policies. we do have a paired set of questions for charters and vouchers because these policies have been around a little longer. we ask a paired set of questions. one asking, based on what you know or have heard from others what do you think of charter schools or school vouchers. so getting a raw sense. those numbers which are not reflected on this chart here but still pluralities that support charter schools and vouchers without us giving information and with the definition, these numbers rise up. we took the same approach with the common core questions later in the survey. if we look at the margins, and it looks like the alignment has gotten off here.
the margins are high across the board where the esas have the largest margin between the positive and negative responses. 34.4 percentage. 34.1 for tax-credit scholarships, plus 28 for vouchers and plus 26 for charter schools. the strongest held views, plus 16 for esas. low is plus 10 points for charter schools. here's some trend lines for the question on vouchers. and we see that there's been an uptick in the support over the last four years from vouchers from 46% to 56%. also an up tick in the opposition to vouchers from 28% to 33%. but one interesting -- and we've voted noted this on an earlier chart. a strongly positive view on vouchers matching the combined negative view on vouchers. 34% favor vouchers.
33% strongly oppose vouchers. here's a trend line that looks different for education savings accounts. it looks like the line wiggling a little bit. this program is very new to a lot of people and a lot of the folks are probably being exposed ♪ concept for the first time and we're providing them definition. 56% of the public supported esas. this year 62%. last year 34% opposed esas. this year 28%. i'd expect as we continue in future years, i expect this to wiggle. it's going to take some time for education savings accounts to diffuse in terms of understanding.
to go through demographic findings. the two subgroups that are the relatively speaking the most likely to oppose school choice and least likely to support school choice are seniors age 55 and older or democrats and leaning democrats. that's pretty clear across the board. on the flip side, the subgroups most lookly to support school choice would be your school parents, low-income earners, young adults and republicans and leaning republicans. so on our voucher question we saw that sub urbanites were more supportive than urbannites when it came to school vouchers. for somebody to do this for a little while. it's a curious finding where the conventional wisdom in school politics is urbanits are more
supportive. we'll see if that olds up next year. republicans and independents are aligning and they do align on charter schools, vouchers, tax credit scholarships. six showing significantly higher numbers. independents and democrats are also supporting esas about the same level and no significant differences on that type of school policy. when it comes to state rnt intervention in low-performing schools, another interesting finding. democrats were more likely to cite school choice as a useful action to families in that situation where state intervenes in a low performing school. more likely than republicans to point to school choice. so we'll finish up talking about common core, standardized
testing and state intervention in schools. we've been asking about common core for the last two years now. and essentially in a total sample, the national sample, the results are unchanged. roughly 50% support common core with some definition, with some context. 40% are opposed to common core. school parents, it's a little bit murkier. we see 47% saying they support common core. and just under 47% saying that they oppose common core. it's about break even on the positive and opposed amongst school parents. then we asked some questions about standardized testing. for both the national sample and the subgroup of school parents we've seen an up tick in those who say the time spent on standardized testing is too high. if you look at those red bars, red chunks on those bars we see that last year the general public said 36% of the general
public said time spent on standardized testing was too high. now it's 42%. that's gone up six points. among school parents it's gone up a little bit from 44% last year to 47% this year saying it's too high. and that's more than twice the other end of the spect rum saying time spent is too low on standardized testing. and then finally this question about state rnt haven'tintervention and low performing schools. give a rating on a scale 1 to 5 on how useful a certain action would be when a state intervene into a low-performing school. we're seeing this across states where there are state takeovers that have all sorts of mechanisms and ways of implement implementation and parent trigger-type policies emerge
especially on the west coast. so when we ask this question 41%, the largest proportion, said supplying a voucher scholarship or esa would be a useful action to affected families and students. and then compare that to those -- just a quarter saying converting district schools to charters would be useful. 25% said replacing school staff, dismissing school staff and leadership would be useful. and then 1 out of 5 said closing the school would be useful. just to review some specific findings. an increase in support of esas. there's been a drop in support for charter schools from 61% to 53%. the opposition has not grown. what we've seen, some of our panelists might have some
insights into this and some comments. there's more, those who were saying they supported charter schools last year moving into the don't know category and unsure category. that alone, it's odd to report on don't know responses, but that was an interesting finding. i'm not sure what to make of it. as i mentioned a couple minutes ago, when the state intervenes in a low-performing school, the largest proportion saying a particular action would work would be supplying students with vouchers, scholarships, esas. 41% gave that response. public opinion on common core remains mixed. margins are positive. the intensity is in the other direction going negative. that's in stark contrast to the choice questions. large positive margins. also mild to moderate positive intensities.
4 out of 10 respondents said the amount of time spent on testing was too high and that's in the national sample. and that proportion is higher among school parents. 47% say that. almost 4 out of 5, 77%, give a fair or poor rating to the federal government when it comes to k-12 education matters. and that's something to think about and as reauthorizationed start to be discussed over the next month. with that, i'll just say, thank you very much. >> great. now for our respondents. i think we'll just go right down the line. i've asked our panel to remind them brevity is the soul of wit. to max kind of five minutes of your quick responses, what struck you first. first off, kara kerwin, the president of the center for education reform. >> one observation i have, and
you were talking about this before, but i look at the charter school question and the decrease in support. i would have one observation for the group to possibly throw out and consider. we have seen a lot of activity in our statehouses across the country going after esas, trying to get voucher programs passed. and we've seen on the other side in chartering, it's mostly either to roll back charters overregulate them or really little or no progress. still eight states without charter school laws. there was a long time ago, charter schools were sort of the only thing taking off. now that we have our elected officials are boldly trying to expand options, i wonder if the public has more knowledge because there's more talk about
it than the charter. and one thing i would also suggest is that a lot of families don't even know they are in a charter school, especially if they are in a state where only local districts can authorize a charter school. a lot of families don't know they are in a school choice or -- that it's something different. only a couple of observations i might throw out there. >> thank you. next up we have gerard robinson. just recently announced gerard will be joining us at aei as a resident fellow. before that he's had a couple other nice gigs. he was the secretary of education for the commonwemt of virginia, commissioner for the state of florida, president of the black alliance for educational options. if anybody would have a view on some of these findings it would be you. >> thank you, mike and paul. education matters to america because education matters to states.
and it matters to states because right now 41 of our states have education as its number one line item. when a governor or state chief and state leaders are looking at a knowledge, education meritatters. number one, there's great dissatisfaction. that doesn't cheer me up as a school choice guy. it makes me wonder where we're going as a nation. the majority of our children in public education. we've got to make it work. when democrats, republicans, urban, suburban, leaning forward, lower income, high or income, over 50% agree in each category that it's not going in the right direction, that should be a wake-up call we need to do the right thing. the second takeaway, 84% have their kids in public schools. look at vouchers, charters education savings accounts, even though in the public sector want options. i don't see it as an anti-public school option.
i see it as an opportunity to diversify how we deliver education to our children. by doing that we'll be a stronger nation. i think those numbers point in the right direction. >> and our final panelist, and after their initial remarks we'll make this a bit more free free-wheeling discussion. wee have matt chingos who is from the brookings institution and director of the brown center on education policy. >> i first want to justice say say surveys are really important and it's great that paul and his colleagues at the center for educational choice do them. there's also educational surveys. on one hand without them all we have to go on are anecdotes. if these surveys weren't done every year then we'd have to go with the in the not talk about we talked to some urban parents and they are real upset about standardized testing.
it's real great we have them. i like this focus on school choice and it delves deeping into that than some of the other educational choice surveys. the choice focus is largely on charters and vouchers and newer voucher-like policies like esas and tax-credit scholarship programs. makes sense in some respects because the survey results show parents want private schools more than they are getting them. 41% choose private school for their children if the sky was the limit. but only 9% choose that option. it sets up a political conundrum. majority support for all these choice programs. whenever anyone tries to do one they get passed once in a while. but it's politically very controversial. not to say we should give up on them.
one area i'd like to see some of the survey work go is to probe more deeply on choice among public schools. 84% of children in this country are attending public schools. so i think the kinds of questions and things you can learn more about are, do parents have enough choices? do these 41% who are saying they want a private school, and most of them could actually get a private school, because they are thinking of the traditional public school option as a fixed as a given option for them or would they be interested in it was in a neighborhood they can't afford to live but they see as a good public school where they'd like to send their child. do these parents understand their choices or do they live in a place where the choice architecture is so hopelessly complicated that they don't know they have options but they don't understand the details of how to make it happen?
do they find they have enough information to make informed choices? it's one of my hobby horses, the choice conversation often focuses largely on charters, vouchers, voucher-like policies. those are important, worth figuring out how to get them right. there's this whole other area that doesn't get enough attention and work like this could really add value to it in the future. >> thank you. maybe the first question i'll kick to all of you, what was -- in going through the mindings here, what was the finding that surprised you the most? paul, we'll start with you. you conducted the survey. that will buy time for the rest of you. the finding that surprised you the most. >> that's a good question. i covered it in one of the slides where some of the differences based on where respondents lived. whether that's the difference between suburban anansuburbanites and urbanites. going against conventional
wisdom of school choice. and then the question about state intervention and low forming schools and we saw democrats citing school choice as a useful remedy at a higher proportion than republicans. some of those political differences, which persisted not just on the choice items but on many of the items. and that's maybe the last point i would make. i am -- let's come together type of guy, and i think it's important to build bridges across the aisle. we do see differences, significant differences between republicans and democrats on a lot of these issues. that's just a reality we have to confront and face with both sides.
>> kara, most surprising finding? >> so if we were thinking or from the parents' perspective or respondents who said they have school-age children, what's interesting is that despite the fact so many of them felt there was too much testing and pressure on testing, almost a 50/50 split on the need for common core and then their valuing quality more or better education. and -- but so, and it goes to the national debate that's going on now about testing, about common core and what parents actually value. but i wonder -- and some of those questions, paul, this is a question for you, when you were characterizing them into better education or quality, what -- were there just some -- is it just feel safer? was safety one of the options? how do you define quality in your survey? >> that's a great question. and we don't really define quality in that item.
so we just -- quality is one of those trigger words. it's going to be coded. usually it's better quality. higher quality. we just leave it to however the respondent takes that. and we do code for things like safety, more structure discipline. and that actually, that is -- it was a little surprising those were fewer responses than i would have expected. >> gerard, most surprising finding. >> democrats and republicans agreeing on something. one, that we need options and, second, that we don't like the way the country is going. so it's almost two here. i don't like it and i don't like which way we're going, yet i want to give options yet when you introduce bills you see democrats and republicans split.
more democrats are starting to come on board but that's a big find. what scares me is how many people think we're going the wrong direction given the billions of dollars we invest. >> matt? >> i was surprised by that statistic in my remarks. the large number of people parents in particular, who are most interested in non-public options. 41% said they'd said their kid to a private school if they could make any choice as compared to 9% that do. it reminds me of this "new yorker" cartoon. depicts two affluent mothers saying, i believe in the concept of public education. >> that was -- that table is very interesting as well. one of the other ones, a 3-1 home school split. three times as many want to home school their kids as opposed to actually doing. so that's a really interesting one. paul, you did some sort of trend
line. for the panel in general that observed these numbers over time, a lot of what paul presented were pretty stable numbers. we see roughly the same numbers over time. this i understand is going beyond what the survey says, so i'm asking you to conjecture. this is a safe place for conjecture. but of those numbers you looked at, did you see some that said these have the potential for moving or some of these are baked in? is it going to be 60/34 vouchers. 50/50 for charter schools or do you see these things moving around? >> kara, maybe start with you. >> we've done -- paul knows this, too. we've done some similar surveying. when you explain what charter schools are to paurntrents or families, we find 72% support
them. you've done polls about parent choice. instead of saying the word vouchers. i think word choice is important. an overwhelming majority of americans appreciate school choice, whether they are public, private, charter, red, green yellow. they like making choices. that's what your survey is finding. as we see more and more of these programs take off, it is sort of like to know them is to love them. when someone sees something that works for them, you'll see increased. if we had more access to those vouchers, or if charter erer school -- if there was more of a population in charter schools. i think you'd see growth in those numbers and types of support. when you know something about something, you are more inclined to support it.
>> i see a continuing increase in charter schools enrollment in urban areas where you fund some of the most challenged populations looking for best options. i see esa growing than some of the other options. it benefits me quickly and puts resources in my hand to get services within this traditional system and look for services outside. that's important. traditional vouchers where they are being tested or not, will continue to grow. and for me, in terms of language, parental choice as we know will continue to expand itself. charters and esas are new articulations of it. i think es asare really going to shore up. >> i said nice things about surveys. maybe i'll beat up on surveys a little bit. it's important to be candid about the limitations of any kind of survey as i'm sure paul is awear.
the way you ask these questions really matters. we did some experiments. you want to give people information that can change their opinion. the way you ask the question frame the question, order the questions can really matter. you are asking people a bunch of detailed questions about things we all think a lot about but most people don't think a whole lot about. that's how you get some of these sensitivities. most people don't know a whole lot. for example, i once heard folks did a survey of americans and asked them whether they prefer $1,000 tax deduction or $1,000 tax credit. obviously the tax credit is
worth more because you get dollars back. the deduction reduces your taxable income. how do you go from republicans democrats holding hands on the survey saying we support school choice to a more polarized thing. you're going from this sterile environment of someone talking on the phone or doing a computer survey to a more politicized debate. i believe in this concept of choice when asked the question but when the party i'm narks liegeiance to isin allegiance to is telling me this is terrible. maybe we shouldn't read too much into any particular survey about what the future portends. but i do think just to restate one of gerard's points that rebranding different things can help. vouchers have a troubled history.
if you can take what's basically a voucher program and rebrand it as a tax scholarship program you can get the same thing but in a politically palatable way. >> i think this is available on everybody's fact sheet. in the lower left-hand column when you broke out those schooling preferences. i used to be a high school teacher. looking at those school types and the reasons people chose those school types. something that was really interesting to me. for those people that pick -- that their ideal school type is a regular public school, they said they value diversity, variety, association, peers. for those who valued a private schedule, the highest were better education, individual attention, same true for charter schools and home schools.
when i respond to that, and i'd like to hear your thoughts on this, it makes me question a lot of our, the horse race narrative or whatever wlnhen we talk about private schools verseus charter schools or public schools. what are the test scores of kids in charter schools or public schools? who is doing better? who is doing worse? when i look at this, these choices might be driven by things other than parents saying like i want the school that can maximize reading and math scores. that there are complex reasons parents choose these things. as we have some mixed positions up on the panel. how do you react to those findings. the motivations of families for the different school sector are different from one another. you want to tackle that one first? >> when you talk to parents, as president of the black alliance of educational options, we support all the options,
including those within the traditional public school system. when we talked to parents as to why they decided to move from traditional school to charter school or take a voucher sometimes safety was a factor. smaller classrooms may have been something to drive them in that direction. sometimes it was a religious focus in the school which gave an advantage to the private school over the public. there are gradations of whether education is first or second but there are a number of areas or reasons people choose schools other than academics. in looking at this, it doesn't surprise me, the diversity and variety. i'd like to see that fleshed out. diversity is broader. it's income and otherwise. i'd like to see that. >> paul, it seemed like you wanted to jump in. >> just to piggyback on what you were saying.
this was somewhat of a surprising finding. we do state polling as well. a handful of state surveys every year. we've broken this out in other states. even state by state it's different. the type of responses you get and how they list out under different school types. so if researchers always like to look for reasons and for further research and exploration. this item in our survey suggested and it's very hard to come up with any concrete conclusions. but it does maybe set the table for further survey work or other types of research, looking into, are there different cultures? surrounding regular public district traditional schools compared to private school culture, charter school culture. any real significant differences
and reasons for choosing those types of schools. that does lend out for maybe some future research. >> and, matt, this is interesting. the point you brought up is well taken. investment and time to be taken into the choice architecture. infrastructure. information to support parents. but it also begs the question, are we still a step or two away from there if we don't know what parents are necessarily looking for? we don't know what information to tell them? do you have any thoughts on maybe how this could guide other researchers to understand better the parental decision-making process so that we can develop that architecture and better inform parents? >> the variation within each of these can be more interesting than the average. the average is an interesting starting point but thinking of where future work could go. i would guess that parents who say, you know, who either chose a private school or didn't but wanted to, i think they could have a lot of different reasons. the family that has access to a pretty good public school. they were more affluent and
could send their kids to the independent school, the very expensive private school in their town. a lower income family couldn't be happy with the public school option and it's the catholic school down the street they want to have access to. i think it should help us learn more about what considerations are for different families. >> great. i have one or two more questions. again, those of you following along at home or in the audience, #schoolinginamerica survey. a ton of people are already tweeting. feel free if you have questions or want to add your thoughts to the conversation, feel free. my kind of last step before we open it up is, obviously, any time polling happens in washington, d.c., people want to know the broader electoral implications of what we found. so, one, obviously the common
core, there's a big wide republican primary taking place right now. there are varying opinions on the common core within that group of people. how do you see these numbers reflecting or having an impact on potential candidates? >> i think that -- so we do ask at the end of the survey, we did ask some questions that had electoral implications on whether they were more or less likely to support a candidate who supported vouchers or esas or common core. and, frankly, more than half said it didn't really make a difference. of the half of the total population that we surveyed there was more likely to vote for a pro-esa or pro voucher candidate.
and then common core, more likely to -- less likely to vote for a pro-common core candidate than they were for -- than more likely to vote for that candidate. i think, and we mentioned this before. there are relative differences. there's majority support among republicans, democrats and independents on these choice items, but there are relative differences that are significant. maybe speak to some of that intens intensity. i was just reading today, this morning an article by charlie cook of the cook political report. he was talking about what republicans need to do in order to move forward. this is a response in the last week or so. and we see that young adults are -- maybe the most supportive of
these different types of choice policies that we're asking about. low-income earners are significantly positive on all these items. so these are nontraditional. at least what's being projected out in the media. these are not your traditional republican constituencies, but we're seeing these groups in our survey time and time again on questions about charters or vouchers or esas. and on the democrat side, the majority support of plurality support for these items. that kind of -- there seems to be a disconnect between your average democrat or leaning democrat and your elites and those in leadership positions in the party and their positions they are taking. that could have implications moving forward. >> fascinating. >> fascinating. another angle when we talk 2016,
and gerard, this would be your point that 41% -- or 41 states education is their largest budget item. one of the top line findings is that it seems like saying that education is the country's highest priority trails well behind a lot of other stuff that people seem to care about. the economy and jobs is twice as large as that. i wonder if you might speak to the state versus national. some of this has greater salience at state level. >> for political aspirants of both parties, if i were to talk to them equally, third party candidates or otherwise if more than 50% of the people are telling you that our public education system is going in the wrong direction, then you need a strong public school message. not just to be politically correct because it's the right thing to do since the majority of our kids are in the public sector.